Races Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution
From: DByron
Date: Tue Mar 16, 2004 9:13 am
Subject: races disappearing
Perhaps this argument is old territory. My
understanding of Steiner's views on reincarnation and human development
is that individuals incarnate into different racial lineages
in order to eventually develop a full depth and range of capacities.
For those who believe in one life only, I suppose an comparable
analogy would be the cognitive benefits gained from the study
of different cultures and their languages, all of which can be
enhanced by travel and friendships with those raised in a milieu
different than one's own. It doesn't seem likely to me that incarnating
repeatedly in the same hereditary stream would allow for balanced
development in the long term, just as living solely within a
single isolated provincial community would be a hindrance to
living a full life today.
I've always understood Steiner to mean that
the reincarnating Ego is not bound to any particular racial group
but rather chooses to incarnate into different hereditary lineages
in order to grow. Why would Steiner then, or anyone else with
a similar regard for the function of the races in human development,
want to see any of them disappear? It only makes sense that it
is a too-strong attachment or over-identification with any particular
blood group over time that is unhealthy, not the spendid
variety of human existence made possible by different races and
cultures. To lose a race seems to me to be an even more profound
a loss for a reincarnationist than for one-life-only thinkers,
who are limited as they believe to the experience of only their
hereditary line. A worldview that includes this understanding
of reincarnation has no place for wanting any race or culture
to cease to exist.
My 2 cents,
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:49 pm
Subject: Steiner on racial evolution
I think Deborah hit the nail on the head here:
Perhaps this argument is old territory. My understanding of
Steiner's views on reincarnation and human development is that
individuals incarnate into different racial lineages in order
to eventually develop a full depth and range of capacities. [...]
I've always understood Steiner to mean that the reincarnating
Ego is not bound to any particular racial group but rather chooses
to incarnate into different hereditary lineages in order to grow.
Why would Steiner then, or anyone else with a similar regard
for the function of the races in human development, want to see
any of them disappear?
I'd like to offer several passages from Steiner
that explain his conception of the relationship between soul
development and race development, and that give an indication
of why he taught that obsolete racial forms need to disappear.
Steiner's basic view is expressed in Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds:
"For peoples and races
are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands
so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the
pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way
from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable.
The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher
national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man
must finally appear in harmonious perfection."
This notion is spelled out in considerable
detail in a number of Steiner's other works. Here is a relevant
passage from his book Christus und die menschliche Seele, pages
92-93:
"If we want to understand
this, we must carefully distinguish between race development
and soul development. The two must not be confused. A human soul
can develop itself in such a way that it incarnates in a particular
race within a given incarnation. If it acquires certain capacities
in this incarnation, then in a later incarnation it can incarnate
in a different race. Thus we can see that within today's European
population there are incarnated souls which were incarnated in
India, Japan, or China in earlier incarnations. The souls certainly
do not remain in the races. Soul development is something quite
different from race development. Racial evolution runs its quiet
course forwards. Now in the ancient European development it was
the case that the souls were transferred into European races
because they were not able to cross over into the Asian races;
therefore the souls at that time were compelled again and again
to incarnate in European races. But they became steadily better
and better, and this resulted in the souls eventually passing
over into higher races, such that souls which had earlier been
incarnated in completely subordinated races developed themselves
upwards onto a higher level and were able to incarnate later
into the physical descendants of the leading population of Europe.
The physical descendants of the leading population of Europe
reproduced and multiplied, became more numerous than they were
originally, because the souls increased in this direction. They
thus incarnated, once they had become better, in the leading
population of Europe. This development occurred in such a way
that the physical form in which the oldest European population
had originally incarnated died out as a physical race, that is,
the souls abandoned bodies of a certain form, which then died
out. That is the reason why there were fewer and fewer descendants
in the subordinate races and more and more descendants in the
higher races. Thus the lowest strata of the European population
gradually died out. This is a very definite process which we
must understand. The souls evolve further, the bodies die away.
We must therefore carefully distinguish between soul development
and race development. The souls then appear in bodies that descend
from higher races."
Steiner presented this notion, that soul improvement
leads to racial advancement, in a variety of contexts, and sometimes
offered counter-examples of souls that refused to progress and
thus stagnated racially. Here is a passage that expands on this
theme:
"Everyone who works in
this way prepares the ground for the human bodies of the future,
for the bodies that souls will later need. There is a word that
beautifully expresses this work toward the future, which we will
understand when we clarify the difference between soul development
and racial development. All of you were once Atlanteans, and
these Atlantean bodies looked very different, as I have already
described. The same soul that was once in an Atlantean body somewhere
is now in your body. But not all bodies have been prepared, in
the way yours have been, by a small number of colonists who long
ago migrated from the West to the East. Those who remained behind,
who bound themselves up with their race, they degenerated, while
the advanced ones founded new civilizations. The last stragglers
on the way to the east, the Mongols, still retain something of
the culture of the Atlanteans. In the same way, the bodies of
those people who do not develop themselves in a progressive fashion
will continue into the next era and will constitute the Chinese
of the future. There will once again be decadent peoples. After
all, the souls that inhabit Chinese bodies are those that will
once again have to incarnate in such races, because they had
too strong an attraction to that race. The souls that are today
within you will later incarnate in bodies that come from people
who work in the way I have indicated, and who beget the bodies
of the future, just as the first colonists from Atlantis once
did. And those who cling to the ordinary, who do not want to
join with the movement toward the future, they will become fused
with their race. There are people who want to stick to the familiar,
who want nothing to do with progress; they refuse to listen to
those who lead the way beyond the race to newer and newer forms
of humanity. The myths have preserved this intention in a wonderful
manner. The best way they could portray this is by pointing to
one of the greatest ones, who spoke the words: “Whosoever
does not leave father and mother, wife and child, brother and
sister, cannot be my disciple”; and by depicting, in contrast,
the tragedy of the person who says, I want nothing to do with
such a leader, and rejects him. How could one express this more
clearly than in the image of the person who rejects the leader,
and who is incapable of advancing! That is the legend of Ahasver,
the Eternal Jew, who sat there and pushed away the greatest leader,
Christ Jesus, who wanted nothing to do with evolution, and who
therefore must remain in his race, must always reappear in his
race. These are myths that have been given to humankind for its
eternal memory, so that humankind knows what it is dealing with."
(Steiner, Menschheitsentwickelung und Christus-Erkenntnis
pp. 186-187)
Explaining again the function of "lower races", Steiner
elsewhere notes that these do not always disappear, if there
are still less developed souls that require corresponding physical
forms:
"You might now be inclined
to say: Is it not an extremely bitter thought that whole bodies
of peoples remain immature and do not develop their capacities;
that only a small group becomes capable of providing the germ
for the next civilization? This thought will no longer disquiet
you if you distinguish between race-development and individual
soul-development, for no soul is condemned to remain in one particular
race. The race may fall behind; the community of people may remain
backward, but the souls progress beyond the several races. If
we wish to form a true conception of this we must say that all
the souls now living in bodies in civilized countries were formerly
incarnated in Atlantean bodies. A few developed there in the
requisite manner, and did not remain in Atlantean bodies. As
they had developed further they could become the souls of the
bodies which had also progressed further. Only the souls which
as souls had remained backward had to take bodies which as bodies
had remained at a lower stage. If all the souls had progressed,
the backward races would either have decreased very much in population,
or the bodies would be occupied by newly incoming souls at a
low stage of development. For there are always souls which can
inhabit backward bodies. No soul is bound to a backward body
if it does not bind itself to it. The relation between soul-development
and race-development is preserved to us in a wonderful myth.
Let us imagine race following race, civilization following civilization.
The soul going through its earth mission in the right way is
incarnated in a certain race; it strives upward in this race,
and acquires the capacities of this race in order next time to
be incarnated in a higher one. Only the souls which sink in the
race and do not work out of the physical materiality, are held
back in the race by their own weight, as one might say. They
appear a second time in the same race and eventually a third
time in bodies in similarly formed races. Such souls hold back
the bodies of the race. This has been wonderfully described in
a legend. We know, indeed, that man progresses further in the
fulfillment of the mission of the earth by following the great
Leaders of humanity who point out the goals to be attained; if
he rejects them, if he does not follow them, he must remain behind
with his race, for he cannot then get beyond it. Let us think
of a personality who has the good fortune to meet a great Leader
of humanity, let us suppose such a personality confronting Christ
Jesus himself, for example; he sees how all his deeds are evidence
for leading humanity forward, but he will have nothing to do
with this progress, he rejects the Leader of humanity. Such a
personality, such a soul would be condemned to remain in the
race. If we follow this thought to its conclusion such a soul
would have to appear again and again in the same race, and we
have the legend of Ahasuerus who had to appear in the same race
again and again because he rejected Christ Jesus. Great truths
concerning the evolution of humanity are placed before us in
such a legend as this."
(Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John, pp.
79-81)
Emphasizing this point, Steiner explains that
it is the failure of some souls to climb higher that accounts
for the continued existence of otherwise obsolete racial forms
alongside the more developed "higher races":
"People who listen to
the great leaders of humankind, and preserve their soul with
its eternal essence, reincarnate in an advanced race; in the
same way he who ignores the great teacher, who rejects the great
leader of humankind, will always reincarnate in the same race,
because he was only able to develop the one form. This is the
deeper meaning of Ahasver, who must always reappear in the same
form because he rejected the hand of the greatest leader, Christ.
Thus each person has the opportunity to become caught up in the
essence of one incarnation, to push away the leader of humankind,
or instead to undergo the transformation into higher races, toward
ever higher perfection. Races would never become decadent, never
decline, if there weren't souls that are unable to move up and
unwilling to move up to a higher racial form. Look at the races
that have survived from earlier eras: they only exist because
some souls could not climb higher."
(Steiner, Das Hereinwirken geistiger Wesenheiten
in den Menschen p. 174)
I encourage comment on these passages. I am
leaving town in a few hours for a full week and will try to catch
up when I return.
Peter Staudenmaier
Steiner
on racial evolution/Ahasver
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 4:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Deborah:
I've always understood Steiner to mean
that the reincarnating Ego is not bound to any particular racial
group but rather chooses to incarnate into different hereditary
lineages in order to grow.
Again, Peter, you show you want to hear what
you want to hear once again. Read, 'hereditary lineages in order
to grow and the idea of not being bound to any particular racial
group.
Wanna try looking at it again, this time with
your glasses on?
Whew, Dottie
:)
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Peter dodges all my recent questions, completely
ignores Bradfords posts, gives vague and flippant answers to
Daniel's many inquiries, and then stands up on his Podium and
does a convenient hit and run, with the same tired old, twisted,
hugely out of context RS quotes that he has been preaching to
his captive audience over on the WC list for years.
P:
I think Deborah hit the nail on the head
here:
M:
No, I think your hammering on the same old
rusty cut-nail that someone else (McCarthy and the like) hammered
in a long time ago.
P, Quoting Deborah:
Perhaps this argument is old territory.
My understanding of Steiner's views on reincarnation and human
development is that individuals incarnate into different racial
lineages in order to eventually develop a full depth and range
of capacities. [...] I've always understood Steiner to mean that
the reincarnating Ego is not bound to any particular racial group
but rather chooses to incarnate into different hereditary lineages
in order to grow. Why would Steiner then, or anyone else with
a similar regard for the function of the races in human development,
want to see any of them disappear?
M:
Ahh, HELLO! Are you serious?
I'd like to play you in a game of chess, as it seems that you
can only think one or two moves ahead.
Deborah can correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks to me that
she is asking a question: "Why would RS want this?"
Meaning that he didn't want "Races" to disappear. Which
is quite obvious to anyone who can think past there own arrogance.
Which is in your case seems to be governed by an robotic dialectic-materialist
Collective-ideological twist and bend. Your "Dead Universe"
anti-capitalist, anti-monogamy, communal life-style advocacy
is a dead giveaway to almost anyone with half a brain and half
a heart (and I'm not talking about the pump).
P:
I'd like to offer several passages from
Steiner that explain his conception of the relationship between
soul development and race development, and that give an indication
of why he taught that obsolete racial forms need to disappear.
Steiner's basic view is expressed in Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds:
Mike:
Yes of course, give us the "several passages"
that you can twist into your little pet theory, that is so stuck
in that hyper-ventilating brain of yours. You said to Tarjei:
"I'm not the manly type." I'm guessing that you mean
not the "Macho" type. But what I think that Tarjei
was getting at when he said you should "Be a Man" was
more in line with showing some honor and Integrity, which is
a sign of a certain amount of emotional maturity. So in that
sense I think you are right - you are not the manly type. You
are honest about what you "Believe," but you do not
portray it with any amount of honor or integrity that I can discern.
It's intellectual cat and mouse as usual. You show no reverence
for metaphorical understanding. If you did you might be able
to understand What RS was/is really getting at in one of his
lecture series on "the Gospel of ST. John" - especially
if one considers the significance of his interpretation of "The
Marriage of Cana."
But of course this kind of stuff is all akin the Marxist notion
that "religion is a disease" and ought to be politely
discarded - and replaced with the disease of intellectualism.
I'll get back to responding to your arrogant ignorance later.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 7:49 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Mike:
But of course this kind of stuff is all
akin the Marxist notion that "religion is a disease"
and ought to be politely discarded - and replaced with the disease
of intellectualism.
Hey Mike,
I like what you wrote above.
I have been thinking about my heroes Dr. King
and Gandhi and the particular culture they were born into. Now,
if you are Peter or Diana, I am not including Dugan because I
think it is disrespectful to both of them, the idea that a man
would choose a particular culture to be born into would seem
absurd. The idea that one would choose their particular parents
as well would seem completely whacked. And that is true for many
people. Although many of the people I know at least take it into
consideration that they can not know these things, and they still
allow for its possibility. And I can understand this.
What I can not understand is how people with
an atheistic outlook can say that 'it is not true'. Just because
we were somehow pushed away from religion due to some childhood
experience or young adulthood experience does not mean we can
not hold an open view on the things we believe we can not come
to know, nor make others wrong for their thoughts. Opening the
heart and mind to the possibility does not mean surrendering
to anyones dogma, what it does mean is that one will not allow
some experience another has pushed onto them to be what directs
their whole inner life in relations to spiritual possibilities.
Looking at Dr. King, it is clear to me that
he was the perfect man to come and not only uplift the black
culture but also those who feel oppressed across the world. He
showed a way to speak for oneself and to demand a higher form
of communication in getting what is rightly ours from birth:
dignity.
Gandhi was born into a culture that was oppressed
as well and he came to the same road that Dr. King did and lifted
an oppressed people up from the bootstraps of their minds to
the highest dream one can have for a life: freedom. And along
the way he uplifted ours. Both of these men had particular missions
through their particular cultures and rocked the world to a better
way for brotherhood of man.
Now, both of these men could have been born
into another culture and I would have to ask if they could have
had the same impact, at that particular time in history on others
if they had not been born into that particular culture. I personally
think not. Now, maybe Diana, and Peter would disagree with me
on this and that is fine. And they may even think it racist to
even consider it. But that's just their opinion and it shows
an actual unwillingness to think beyond their minds and into
their hearts on such matters and should not reflect on the fact
that others are willing to look at such matters and that is not
a bad thing.
So, is it racist to come from a spiritual
understanding of who we are and to recognize what each culture
has offered us and to be thankful at that particular time they
were born into that particular culture as we live in a better
world today because of it. My life has been impacted by these
great heroes of mankind who are all physically dead but remain
in the atmosphere of our world. People are still brought to tears
and greatness by the works left by these two great men who rocked
the world from their particular cultural standpoint in history.
My thoughts this morning,
Dottie
p.s. who says being politically correct is
right? It feels more like people afraid to dialogue with certain
cultures about everyday life. Kind of like 'oh better not to
say it lest we have to have an uncomfortable conversation. Ballyhoo
to that.
...................................................................................................................................
From: DByron
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 8:34 am
Subject: Steiner on racial evolution
The only way I can interpret Peter Staudenmaier's
remark that I have 'hit the nail on the head' is that I have
posed a juicy question (why would RS suggest that any race disappear)
for which Peter will now provide his answer. I can't imagine
that he actually thinks we are in agreement on what Steiner intended.
It will all undoubtedly wind up in some grand FAQ appendix to
the book he's working on. Right, Peter?
But it does bring up a related point--my growing
concern that things said here in the process of working through
these highly loaded issues of race and human evolution will end
up being picked apart, decontextualized, misconstrued, and then
re-published who-knows-where with names attached. At which point
one has no choice but to spend hours and hours in a futile attempt
at correction, which, as we've all noticed in the mainstream
media as well, never seems to merit the front page placement
granted to distortions.
I would like very much to go further with
this discussion but will have to think about it some more first.
A sad state of affairs.
Deborah
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Deborah:
But it does bring up a related point--my
growing concern that things said here in the process of working
through these highly loaded issues of race and human evolution
will end up being picked apart, decontextualized, misconstrued,
and then re-published who-knows-where with names attached.
Hi Deborah,
Sad to say this is the state of affairs with
Dugan and company including Peter Staudenmaier. I recall on the
critics list Lisa stating that because Dr. Steiner talked on
Karma he was advocating letting your children die instead of
looking for a cure. That is how far the critics go. It's pretty
ignorant and very misleading and on purpose. Lisa is a journalist,
at least she should know better but she does not seem to care
other than grinding her axe at all cost even unto the loss of
integrity. Again, I have to wonder if she is paid as a member
of PLANS at this point in time. Which would explain the years
and years she has spent misleading others, and on purpose in
my opinion, the works of Dr. Steiner.
Deborah:
I would like very much to go further with
this discussion but will have to think about it some more first.
A sad state of affairs.
Yeah, it's tough knowing that they will only
pick out what they want and throw anything that expresses a thing
to the opposite conclusion. These are people who care naught
for any spiritual understanding and look for 'words' instead
of meanings.
All my best,
Dottie
p.s. Peter sees the words 'race', 'racial'
as indicative that Dr. Steiner spoke on separateness when that
is the actual opposite meaning of his work. And nothing will
change this. His mind is set and there is no growing or self
reflection of a thing. I am so thankful I am not of this particular
stream and that my thinking can rise with each new thought that
comes my way. I am thankful I can contemplate a thing and not
have it dependant on what I had thought before. Each thought
becomes a point of departure of sorts.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Deborah, I appreciate your calm and concern.You
wrote:
<snip>
But it does bring up a related point--my
growing concern that things said here in the process of working
through these highly loaded issues of race and human evolution
will end up being picked apart, decontextualized, misconstrued,
and then re-published who-knows-where with names attached.
I think that is, in the style and mannerisms
of Agent Smith - "inevitable."
At which point one has no choice but to
spend hours and hours in a futile attempt at correction, which,
as we've all noticed in the mainstream media as well, never seems
to merit the front page placement granted to distortions.
I would like very much to go further with
this discussion but will have to think about it some more first.
A sad state of affairs.
Deborah
Personally, I have no reputation to lose.
I survived the streets of the Boston suburb that I grew up in.
I see the reputation of RS becoming more and
more slandered and desecrated, by atheistic intellectuals with
all their self important ideas about how other people should
think.
I'm getting the feeling that all hell's about
to break loose. A propaganda smear campaign is a war of sorts.
And if it's a War that they want???
I'm thinking about it too.
It is a sad state of affairs, and sadness
has a correlation with anger.
I'm getting really pissed.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Mar 18, 2004 10:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
P:
I'd like to offer several passages from
Steiner that explain his conception of the relationship between
soul development and race development, and that give an indication
of why he taught that obsolete racial forms need to disappear.
Steiner's basic view is expressed in Knowledge of the Higher
Worlds:
"For peoples and races
are but steps leading to pure humanity. A race or a nation stands
so much the higher, the more perfectly its members express the
pure, ideal human type, the further they have worked their way
from the physical and perishable to the supersensible and imperishable.
The evolution of man through the incarnations in ever higher
national and racial forms is thus a process of liberation. Man
must finally appear in harmonious perfection."
mike:
If belief in the theory of reincarnation as a means of achieving
"hamonious perfection" is pure bullshit to you, then
deriving your racist label from this passage is much easier,
isn't it.
But you do not seem understand that your theory of racism is
a "belief" as well, and thus subject to the same "Pure
Bullshit" label.
Cultural diversity is a fact, and has been through out human
history. That different cultures have pummeled, murdered, raped
and abused other cultures it also a fact. The Peloponnesians
and the ancient Romans are gone - they disappeared. Sad but true.
But in this day and age it is not "Politically Correct "
to say that in the future this might happen again, otherwise
- shame on you, that's a racist idea. And God (or not) forbid
that we mention in the wrong way the idea that some cultures
might be more advanced in some ways than others - shame on you
again....bad, bad, bad [big shaking finger in the face].
Systematic bullshit denial is often helpful when one seeks personal
fame, or is addicted to an ideology that they would like to see
advanced. Many a rock star has acquired fame and influence this
way.
More Later,
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:44 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Mike wrote:
That different cultures have pummeled,
murdered, raped and abused other cultures it also a fact. The
Peloponnesians and the ancient Romans are gone - they disappeared.
Sad but true. But in this day and age it is not "Politically
Correct " to say that in the future this might happen again,
otherwise - shame on you, that's a racist idea. And God (or not)
forbid that we mention in the wrong way the idea that some cultures
might be more advanced in some ways than others - shame on you
again....bad, bad, bad [big shaking finger in the face].
Some different "cultures" are gone
now . . . some "cultures" might be more advanced than
others . . . Mike, I notice that when you stand up and shake
your fist back at the critics who dare notice racism in Rudolf
Steiner, you don't actually have the nerve to write the word
"race" in passages like the above, even though Steiner
did. Why not?
Are you being politically correct? Or does
this racial language make you a tad uncomfortable? Now don't
just say, "What Bradford said" like you don't have
thoughts of your own. Do you think a race is the same thing as
a culture? Do you think cultural differences make one race more
advanced than another? Do you think that is my lack of spiritual
understanding (a pretty cheap fallback position, no?) - or do
you think there might be a (hint: wide as the Grand Canyon) difference
in meaning in these two concepts, culture and race?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 20, 2004 8:45 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
[Diana:]
Mike wrote:
That different cultures have pummeled,
murdered, raped and abused other cultures it also a fact. The
Peloponnesians and the ancient Romans are gone - they disappeared.
Sad but true. But in this day and age it is not "Politically
Correct " to say that in the future this might happen again,
otherwise - shame on you, that's a racist idea. And God (or not)
forbid that we mention in the wrong way the idea that some cultures
might be more advanced in some ways than others - shame on you
again....bad, bad, bad [big shaking finger in the face].
Some different "cultures" are
gone now . . . some "cultures" might be more advanced
than others . . . Mike, I notice that when you stand up and shake
your fist back at the critics who dare notice racism in Rudolf
Steiner, you don't actually have the nerve to write the word
"race" in passages like the above, even though Steiner
did. Why not?
Because it's my prerogative; because I don't
particularly care to take other peoples words for what I'm told
that they should mean; because I believe that RS had a much bigger
picture in mind when he used the word race; because much meaning
can get lost in translation; because the words race and racism
have allot of stigma attached to them when talking about A and
RS; because I choose to play the written semantical word game
by my own rules, like another Anarchist that I know of (thought
I would not absolutely label myself an anarchist); because I'm
not only interested in nitpicking meaning out of words written
in books by a long since dead guy to prove a point that has no
motive or intent.
Are you being politically correct?
I hope not.
Or does this racial language make you a
tad uncomfortable?
Well no, I love radical language. I just don't
particularly care for other peoples interpretations. Especially
when they have no regard for another persons personal spiritual
understanding.
Now don't just say, "What Bradford
said" like you don't have thoughts of your own.
No No. I said that Bradford and I think the
same thoughts, not that I think his thoughts. My interpretation
of those thoughts are definitely my own.
Do you think a race is the same thing as
a culture?
I like to think of human evolution in a broader
perspective than that.
Do you think cultural differences make
one race more advanced than another?
Well, yes and no, depends on what you mean
by "advanced." African bush men don't have computers.
But I personally believe that they are born with the same potential
as every other human being. And I also believe that that is what
RS was saying in his interpretation of the marriage of Cana.
Do you think that is my lack of spiritual
understanding (a pretty cheap fallback position, no?)
No. Sounds to me that you have some reverence
for other peoples spiritual understanding, and I appreciate that.
or do you think there might be a (hint:
wide as the Grand Canyon) difference in meaning in these two
concepts, culture and race?
I willing to bet that there might be a big
difference for you :^)
Regards
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 8:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
That certainly was an intriguing batch of
replies to my post about Steiner's teachings on racial evolution.
Remarkably, the only ones who said anything about Steiner's teachings
themselves were Bradford and Mike. This is a missed opportunity;
the theory of racial progress that Steiner expounds in these
passages is central to many of the halting debates we've had
here about race.
What Steiner says in the texts I quoted is that individual souls
undergo a process of self-improvement via successive incarnations
in ever higher racial and ethnic forms, eventually moving toward
a perfected human type. In his account, race development is tightly
correlated to soul development; as souls become better, they
incarnate in more advanced races and peoples. Lower races and
peoples gradually die out as the mass of souls moves upward toward
perfection, thus requiring more perfected bodies to house them.
Souls that fail to develop themselves in a progressive fashion
(by rejecting Christ, for instance) incarnate in lower racial
and ethnic forms; Steiner names Chinese and Jews as examples.
These backward peoples and races still have a residual function,
as long as there are less developed souls that need to incarnate
in declining and decadent racial and ethnic forms. Meanwhile,
small select racial and ethnic groups continue their development
upward in order to host those souls that are advancing spiritually
and approaching the ideal human type.
Many non-anthroposophists recognize that this theory of racial
evolution is racist. Many anthroposophists think that it isn't.
This disagreement apparently involves very different conceptions
of racism; a lot of anthroposophists evidently believe that the
notion of higher and lower races, advanced ethnic groups and
backward ethnic groups, progressing races and decadent races,
is not itself racist. I have no good ideas about how to move
the discussion beyond that peculiar impasse. For now, here are
a few responses to particular arguments brought forth by defenders
of Steiner's theory of racial evolution.
Dottie wrote:
Again, Peter, you show you want to hear
what you want to hear once again. Read, 'hereditary lineages
in order to grow and the idea of not being bound to any particular
racial group.
Wanna try looking at it again, this time
with your glasses on?
Whew, Dottie
I'm not sure why this wasn't clear the first time around, but
I agree with the main outlines of Deborah's description of Steiner's
teachings on racial evolution. Steiner did indeed say that the
reincarnating ego is not bound to any particular racial group
but rather chooses to (or refuses to) incarnate into different
hereditary lineages in order to grow. That's exactly what he
says in the passages I quoted. Several listmates apparently think
that this position in itself is somehow incompatible with racism,
which suggests to me a rather rudimentary understanding of racist
thought.
Dottie again:
So, is it racist to come from a spiritual understanding of
who we are and to recognize what each culture has offered us
and to be thankful at that particular time they were born into
that particular culture as we live in a better world today because
of it.
This is only racist if you link particular cultures to particular
racial groups, arrange those racial groups into higher and lower
categories, and say that individual souls incarnate first in
lower racial forms and then, if their souls improve, in higher
racial forms. That, of course, is what Steiner taught. If anybody
disagrees that this is what Steiner taught, please say so.
Dottie again:
Peter sees the words 'race', 'racial' as indicative that Dr.
Steiner spoke on separateness when that is the actual opposite
meaning of his work.
Steiner did not promote racial separation.
Mike wrote:
If belief in the theory of reincarnation as a means of achieving
"hamonious perfection" is pure bullshit to you, then
deriving your racist label from this passage is much easier,
isn't it.
No, not at all. Lots of people believe in reincarnation. Relatively
few of those people believe in racial evolution, much less in
higher races and lower races, racial missions, and so forth.
The belief that some racial forms are higher than others, that
some racial forms express the pure ideal human type more perfectly
than others, is racist. To my mind, this has nothing to do with
political correctness; it has to do with recognizing the basic
features of racist thought.
Bradford wrote:
The Politically Incorrect seek to understand
Races and Racism as if humanity does or does not out grow certain
forms and that there is an awful stigma attached to such labels,
such as Antisemitism. [...] A world
of Beings against a world of bizarre dead actions of matter,
called science, and a failure to grasp that evolution does not
mean that all things are equal, that everything is equal to everything
else is full blown mechanistic ahrimanizaton of thought.
The notion that humanity has outgrown certain racial forms but
not others can accurately be described as racist, quite regardless
of whether this notion is politically incorrect. Similarly, the
denial that all racial groups are equal is the very epitome of
racism. People who reject racism do not hold that all people
are equal in every important respect. They simply hold that all
races are equal in every important respect. Belief in the inequality
of races is the cornerstone of racist thinking.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 3:34 pm
Subject: PS on racism (was: Steiner on racial evolution)
At 17:59 25.03.2004, Peter S wrote:
Similarly, the denial that all racial groups
are equal is the very epitome of racism.
Ironically, this is a racist statement by
Peter Staudenmaier. Allow me to explain:
Today's humanity does not consist of group
souls or races per se, but of individuals. The animal kingdom
consists of species, group souls, but according to RS, if the
term "species" should be applied to humans, then each
individual human being is a species all to himself. The
individual animal is not conscious, but shares with his species
the consciousness of a higher Being, the group consciousness.
The consciousness of this higher Being who rules an animal species
is comparable, though not yet equal, to the consciousness of
individual man.
Individual human beings are not equal; individual
characteristics differ to such a degree that we are compelled
to conclude that each human being is unique, and therefore unequal
to all other human beings, just like every animal species is
unique. Human beings have equal rights, however, they live under
the same natural laws and endeavor to create moral and legal
laws that are valid for all: equal opportunities and equal rights.
But it is an insult against the dignity of man and his divine
spark and a denial of his free will to say that all individuals
are equal.
In our day and age it is also an affront to
the Consciousness Soul and the Michael Age to assign individuals
to racial groups and then demand that these groups should be
equal. Echoes of Woodrow Wilson's idea of national self-determination
are heard in the background here - an idea that contributed to
you-know-what. It's racism of the most ignoble and sinister kind
possible, because it's so damned camouflaged, masquerading under
the banner of anti-racism. But it's not only racism; it's also
Marxist-Leninism, because a populace divided into racial groups
that must be absolutely equal at all costs translates into a
malleable grey mass - an obedient mass subdued through politically
correct Newspeak into crippling fear of being self-dependent
thinkers who speak and act freely and clothe their thoughts in
words whose meaning has been bestowed by higher powers. Newspeak
re-defines every syllable of the Logos, stripping it of spiritual
content and threatening the Children of Liberty with name-calling
and pillories if they don't toe the line. Today the name-calling
is "racist"; the next may be "pedophile"
- anything that can stir the id among the mentally lazy and fearful
in the grey anonymous mass.
But the trick won't work. The wannabe manipulators
of language and behavior are busted, and their bluffs are transparent.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Harvey Bornfield
Date: Thu Mar 25, 2004 4:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Peter:
When I look at the idea of racism from a phenomenological
point of view, and take into consideration Shakespeare's warning
"Nothing is good or evil but thinking makes it so",
I find that to those who cherish and persevere in the challenge
of beholding, of bathing the entire One Human Race in altruistic
light and noble perspective, the underlying dominant component
of thought most odious in racism as an attitude, is arrogance.
Arrogance, which defaming, pre-judges the inherent level of capability
and moral worth of an individual through resort to affiliation
with group identity. Prejudice is malicious stereotyping, the
- if I may borrow from the life of imagination, - "Dark
Reptile Overlord" which imbues all racism, and nationalism,
as well as countless other obsessive-compulsive group diseases
with a distinctively offensive spin.
What follows, you'll find to be somewhat maverick'd,
orphaned, unlobby'd, divorced as it were, of notions of agenda
or policy inherited from some artesian collective stance. I consider
thought as what arises when, and only after beliefs are liberated,
utterly divested from the vortex magnetisms of spoken, published
and dreamt dogma and other fundamentalist forms of blind captivity.
And at that moment, thought ceases to be argument, but acquiring
a purity, becomes transformed into an offering, an invitation,
rather than a clandestine agenda, coercion or a tyranny. And
future historians, having attained a breath of detachment not
often even aspired to in this metronomically-perfect conveyor-belt
culture of well-riveted intellectual and religiously entrenched
positions, will no doubt come to assess that an underlying fascination
with triumph lies at the heart of every obsession, every desire
to dominate, and confuses men, stealing their oxygen, taxing
the poor plants, robbing them of their perogatives for dialogue.
This having been said, we'll restate the most
underlying pathology which gives racism its reputatation as a
projection which corrodes and impedes the healing of the world.
This would be, as I judge it, prejudice, with its pre-mental-mold
intent upon downsizing the self-worth, the opportunities and
privileges of certain groups of people, compressing them and
seeing them as somehow "sub-human" and therefore "automatically",
unchallengably less or not at all unentitled to honor accorded
to those in the so called mainstream of human society.
Such darkness, viewed in the light of "By
their fruits ye shall know them", affords just such a phenomenologically
sound opportunity to intuitively discern, rather than logically
deduce the actual intent of Steiner. It would be valuable and
refreshing if one were to look upon the influence Steiner has
sired in his teaching and which resides in his infrastructures
such as Waldorf, Biodynamic, Christian Community, Banking initiatives,
etc, with a view to analyzing and probing the underlying moral
intent carried forward into human history by those who employ
his ideas and work within his infrastructures. If it be found
that Steiner's theories which connect racial identity to metaphysical
impulses which source chapters of culture, utterly fail the requisite
criteria of malice and arrogance as underwrites the stigma which
might be heaped upon those whom we might overtly or tacitly indict
with the term "Racist", one would then be free to consider
the Noble Doctor vindicated of all trace of moral wrong-doing,
and we ourselves, untithed to our sold-separately political crimps,
so also be free to proceed to examining the scaffolding of the
idea of root races, cultural epochs and the like, under the unsuspected
assumption that such notions, far from being a jaded claustrophobia
authored by an individual of narrow or even twisted perspective,
tell a tale of an underlying and unsuspected benevolence, breathe
an innocence, a cool wonder in which such ideas, which truth
to tell, are Living Ideas rather than inventory or a ballast
of mere intellectual terminology, and so as fairy tales to children,
can to speak to us, revealing wellsprings of underlying wisdom
and inspiration which can connect to the inner life of men. This
is, in a nutshell, why people indulge Anthroposophy. It is simply
far more interesting than polemic, for it enables us to explore
and embrace imaginative and intuitive ways to scaffold the life
of circumstance with the conscious knowledge of the realm usually
available to men only through the life of dreams, that is to
suggest, "read only" dreams!
Now to get at fathoming another person's intent,
requires a pair of eyes, two perspectives, mind's eye and heart's
eye, as it were: Said another way, the ability to stereoscopically
triangulate two points of view, poses a steep challenge in which
one learns to "metaphysically titrate", as it were,
what is said or professed against an examination of the legacy
of his influence, i..e., deeds which clothed that moral intent,
acts actually manifested into society. This because, in the ultimate
analysis, or so I imagine, - and you will have to play jury to
this speculation, because we are interested in dialogue and bridge-building
here, rather than diatribe, - that history looks upon the way
in which the ideas sourced by an individual mature into deeds,
as probably a more reliable confirmation of their intent than
what can be deduced by resort exclusively to the spoken words.
We could rephrase the stereoscopic perspective this way: Hamlet
might say: "To discern or to deduce - that is the question"
Intuition fathoms the first. Logic sires the other. Logic which
I suspect most Anthroposophists, or better - anyone possessed
of philosophical depth and sensitivity - would, if they reflected
come to understand as but the veneer, the epicentral circumstance
of more profound, subjectively-arising talents. Vibrant ideas,
as all intuition is, that are, at this point in human evolution
still dwelling almost exclusively in the province of art and
are still considered untrustworthy, a "Persona Non-Grata",
which translates to "Subjective Powers Unacknowledged as
Worthy to engage, to penetrate, to transact scientific endeavor"
So now, to return to make a point. It does
not matter whether one deduces on the basis of what Steiner says
that there are grounds for an indictment of racism, for this
is but one wing of the bird; failing the other wing, intuitively
discerned through phenemonological evidence assessing the moral
quality of the deeds of those who carry forth his ideas and influence
into the stream of a hundred years of history, sourcing a stereoscopic,
that is to say, a reliable judgment is impossible.
Widening scope to a brief overview of the
ferocious campaigns which have been waged on this woodless floorboards
of this cyberforum, it must be said as in a spirit of promise,
that a great deal of joust energy can be sent into exile on both
sides of this seemingly Cobra-Mongoose spectacle if interest
in convincing and conviction, were to become seen as far less
philosophically interesting than in enjoying the ambiguity and
the underlying mystery that lives in contradiction. The study
of the mysteries begins when questions turn into quests, and
learning is more closely related to living within the unentrenched
perspective of vulnerability where courage, unrehearsed courage
is sourced, rather than from positions of power and the fascination
of being at the helm of a well-engineered world view in which
all experience which might overwhelm understanding is like a
Prospero, excluded from court.
Warm regards,
Harvey Bornfield
On Thursday, March 25, 2004, at 09:59 AM,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
That certainly was an intriguing batch
of replies to my post about Steiner's teachings on racial evolution.
Remarkably, the only ones who said anything about Steiner's teachings
themselves were Bradford and Mike. This is a missed opportunity;
the theory of racial progress that Steiner expounds in these
passages is central to many of the halting debates we've had
here about race.
<snip>
And to Solomon the power of
the swiftly-blowing Wind..... and it sped at his bidding to the
lands We had blessed, for We know all things........
Quran
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 3:11 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
----- Original Message ----- [PS:]
What Steiner says in the texts
I quoted is that individual souls undergo a process of self-improvement
via successive incarnations in ever higher racial and ethnic
forms, eventually moving toward a perfected human type. In his
account, race development is tightly correlated to soul development;
as souls become better, they incarnate in more advanced races
and peoples.
Hi list,
You can see here how a "Paviglianti's head" is able
to twist concepts and also to reduce deep and complex issues
in a kind of abstract and false scheme , all based on a mistaken
picture able to give the impression that Mankind's Evolution
is a kind of Ultra-Darwinistic race.
The "Paviglianti's head" is unable
to grasp fact as the following.
Several Spiritual path's disciples know very
well about the issue of the guys who , before becoming incarnate
, choosed, in absolute freedom, to give their bodies, destined
karmically to be full of health and power, to someone else ,
"exchanging" his own strong physical sheat with a weaker
and feebler one.
This is the way the I AM works , outside any schematism or command
compelling his Freedom.
This is the way that a "computing machine" in "human"
form (although "Paviglianti'-like) will never be able to
grasp.
A.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:29 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Harvey, you wrote:
When I look at the idea of racism from
a phenomenological point of view, and take into consideration
Shakespeare's warning "Nothing is good or evil but thinking
makes it so", I find that to those who cherish and persevere
in the challenge of beholding, of bathing the entire One Human
Race in altruistic light and noble perspective, the underlying
dominant component of thought most odious in racism as an attitude,
is arrogance.
I partly disagree. While many forms of racism do indeed go hand
in hand with arrogance, I don't see a necessary connection between
the two, either historically or conceptually, and in any case
I don't see the frequent presence of arrogance within racist
thought as its most odious component.
Arrogance, which defaming, pre-judges the inherent level of
capability and moral worth of an individual through resort to
affiliation with group identity. Prejudice is malicious stereotyping,
the - if I may borrow from the life of imagination, - "Dark
Reptile Overlord" which imbues all racism, and nationalism,
as well as countless other obsessive-compulsive group diseases
with a distinctively offensive spin.
I don't think that racism and nationalism are group diseases.
They're belief systems, ideologies.
This having been said, we'll restate the
most underlying pathology which gives racism its reputatation
as a projection which corrodes and impedes the healing of the
world. This would be, as I judge it, prejudice, with its pre-mental-mold
intent upon downsizing the self-worth, the opportunities and
privileges of certain groups of people, compressing them and
seeing them as somehow "sub-human" and therefore "automatically",
unchallengably less or not at all unentitled to honor accorded
to those in the so called mainstream of human society.
That is only true of some forms of racism, not all forms. Lots
of racists recognize that those they consider racially inferior
are human, rather than sub-human, and many racists are quite
willing to accord honor to those they consider racially inferior.
Such darkness, viewed in the light of "By
their fruits ye shall know them", affords just such a phenomenologically
sound opportunity to intuitively discern, rather than logically
deduce the actual intent of Steiner.
I don't think that's what we should be doing anyway. Since Steiner
isn't around anymore, we can't ask him what his actual intent
was. What we can do is read what he wrote and said and try to
make sense of it.
It would be valuable and refreshing if one were to look upon
the influence Steiner has sired in his teaching and which resides
in his infrastructures such as Waldorf, Biodynamic, Christian
Community, Banking initiatives, etc, with a view to analyzing
and probing the underlying moral intent carried forward into
human history by those who employ his ideas and work within his
infrastructures.
That's a fine idea. When we look at what some prominent representatives
of Waldorf, biodynamics, and the Christian Community said and
did before and during the Nazi era, we find a lot of examples
of racism, nationalism, and antisemitism. These people thought
that they were employing Steiner's ideas.
If it be found that Steiner's theories
which connect racial identity to metaphysical impulses which
source chapters of culture, utterly fail the requisite criteria
of malice and arrogance as underwrites the stigma which might
be heaped upon those whom we might overtly or tacitly indict
with the term "Racist", one would then be free to consider
the Noble Doctor vindicated of all trace of moral wrong-doing
I think that conflates several distinct steps. Whether you think
that specific statements about race can be considered racist
is one thing; whether you think such statements constitute moral
wrong-doing is another. Mixing the two up won't help us make
sense of the matter.
and we ourselves, untithed to our sold-separately political
crimps, so also be free to proceed to examining the scaffolding
of the idea of root races, cultural epochs and the like, under
the unsuspected assumption that such notions, far from being
a jaded claustrophobia authored by an individual of narrow or
even twisted perspective, tell a tale of an underlying and unsuspected
benevolence, breathe an innocence, a cool wonder in which such
ideas, which truth to tell, are Living Ideas rather than inventory
or a ballast of mere intellectual terminology, and so as fairy
tales to children, can to speak to us, revealing wellsprings
of underlying wisdom and inspiration which can connect to the
inner life of men.
I think that is beside the point. Whether specific ideas are
racist has nothing to do with whether they arise from benevolent
intentions or wellsprings of wisdom and so forth. Lots of racists
were and are driven by moral intentions.
Peter Staudenmaier
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 11:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Mike wrote:
If belief in the theory of reincarnation
as a means of achieving "hamonious perfection" is pure
bullshit to you, then deriving your racist label from this passage
is much easier, isn't it.
P:
No, not at all. Lots of people believe
in reincarnation. Relatively few of those people believe in racial
evolution, much less in higher races and lower races, racial
missions, and so forth. The belief that some racial forms are
higher than others, that some racial forms express the pure ideal
human type more perfectly than others, is racist. To my mind,
this has nothing to do with political correctness; it has to
do with recognizing the basic features of racist thought.
M:
Some of us like to broaden our perspective and think in terms
of the evolution of human consciousness. That consciousness has
evolved through different cultures and peoples and the terms
"higher and lower" are words used to describe the progress,
or digression. Maybe they are not the best "words"
that could be used to describe the process. But some of us aren't
just looking for "words" to help us "recognize
the basic features racist thought."
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hi again Mike, you wrote:
Some of us like to broaden our perspective
and think in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. That
consciousness has evolved through different cultures and peoples
and the terms "higher and lower" are words used to
describe the progress, or digression. Maybe they are not the
best "words" that could be used to describe the process.
But some of us aren't just looking for "words" to help
us "recognize the basic features racist thought."
Yes, I can see that. This probably explains why you get irritated
when other people, who do pay attention to Steiner's words, point
out that some of his teachings are racist. It might also explain
why you get irritated when other people, who do recognize the
basic features of racist thought, try to describe some of those
features for you. You frequently get "peoples" and
"cultures" mixed up, and you appear to think that both
are essentially synonyms for "race". The belief that
some races are higher while others are lower, that some races
are progressing while others are regressing, is racist. It remains
racist no matter what one thinks about political correctness,
morality, or the evolution of consciousness. If you think this
belief is not racist, you just need to explain why.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: walkinsnotwelcome
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 11:11 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
(1) I was being ambivalent today about buying
a magazine called Anarchy, then saw your name in there and knew
just what to do. Then it seemed the people in there hated your
mode of criticism/analysis/discussion, threw many bad words at
it, but your style seemed very straightforward to me, I don't
know what to think, I will probably make some effort at resolving
this. (2) Have you defined the words "race" and "racism"
here yet? It might help, though I doubt it.
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 1:02 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
... You frequently get "peoples"
and "cultures" mixed up, and you appear to think that
both are essentially synonyms for "race".
Gidday Peter,
That's a good point. If the doctrine which
holds that moving forward in evolution is directly tied to race,
was changed - and the word 'culture' replaced 'race' - would
that be an acceptable formulation? Up until a century ago the
two were virtually synonymous anyway, so the doctrine would remain
essentially intact even with this word change. It can easily
be argued that 'culture' is in fact what was meant.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 7:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hello again Peter, I wrote:
Some of us like to broaden our perspective
and think in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. That
consciousness has evolved through different cultures and peoples
and the terms "higher and lower" are words used to
describe the progress, or digression. Maybe they are not the
best "words" that could be used to describe the process.
But some of us aren't just looking for "words" to help
us "recognize the basic features racist thought."
P:
Yes, I can see that. This probably explains
why you get irritated when other people, who do pay attention
to Steiner's words, point out that some of his teachings are
racist. It might also explain why you get irritated when other
people, who do recognize the basic features of racist thought,
try to describe some of those features for you. You frequently
get "peoples" and "cultures" mixed up, and
you appear to think that both are essentially synonyms for "race".
The belief that some races are higher while others are lower,
that some races are progressing while others are regressing,
is racist. It remains racist no matter what one thinks about
political correctness, morality, or the evolution of consciousness.
If you think this belief is not racist, you just need to explain
why.
M:
I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am
"mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already
explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again:
Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't
just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words.
Metaphorical significance is something that I wish that I learned
a long time ago, when I used to say things like: "hey, lets
go get wasted," or hammered, shit-faced, plowed, stupid,
fucked up, plastered, inebriated, polluted, drunk as a skunk,
and so on...
I've seen some really dangerous people turn their lives completely
around by using a concept like "Elliot the purple dragon"
as a higher power, one because he hated to word God, and all
the meaningless metaphorical significance that had been attached
to it for him over his life time.
RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in trying
to describe the world of spirit.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Walkinsnotwelcome wrote:
(1) I was being ambivalent today about buying a magazine called
Anarchy, then saw your name in there and knew just what to do.
Then it seemed the people in there hated your mode of criticism/analysis/discussion,
threw many bad words at it, but your style seemed very straightforward
to me, I don't know what to think, I will probably make some
effort at resolving this.
Yes, the folks at Anarchy Magazine don't like critical scrutiny
any more than some of the anthroposophists assembled here. I
think one of the interesting parallels between these two otherwise
disparate cases is that I do sometimes believe that I know more
about the doctrines under scrutiny than some of the advocates
of these doctrines themselves. A lot of people see that as arrogant.
I see it as a perfectly acceptable aspect of public discourse.
(2) Have you defined the words "race" and "racism"
here yet? It might help, though I doubt it.
Yes, I have offered what I think are reasonable definitions of
race and racism, but I do not demand that others follow these
definitions. What I do expect is that people who differ with
the definitions I have put forward offer some sort of argument
for their preferred definitions. For those of you who think it
is not racist to sort particular racial groups into categories
of higher and lower, more advanced and less advanced, progressive
and backward, evolving and decadent, I'd like to hear why you
think this. For those of you who reject the basic principle of
racial equality but disagree that this rejection constitutes
the cornerstone of racist thought, I'd like to hear why you think
this. And so forth.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 10:48 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Raymon, you wrote:
If the doctrine which holds that moving forward in evolution
is directly tied to race, was changed - and the word 'culture'
replaced 'race' - would that be an acceptable formulation?
It wouldn't be completely "acceptable" to me, but it
wouldn't be racist. The formulation only becomes racist when
it is explicitly tied to race.
Up until a century ago the two were virtually synonymous anyway,
so the doctrine would remain essentially intact even with this
word change.
I partly disagree with that. It is true that racists a century
ago routinely conflated race and culture (not to mention language
and ethnicity). But there were vocal critics of this conflation
from the mid-nineteenth century onward. Steiner ignored the critics
and swallowed this conflation hook, line, and sinker.
It can easily be argued that 'culture' is in fact what was
meant.
You don't need to argue that point with me, as I already agree
that Steiner "meant" cultures when he talked about
races. But he plainly also meant races in the biological sense.
He simply failed to distinguish the two much of the time. That
is one of the hallmarks of racist thought, historically speaking.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 4:14 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Gidday Peter,
You state `…I already agree that Steiner
"meant" cultures when he talked about races…'.
And you state that insofar as this is the case, the doctrine
is not racist – though not completely acceptable to you.
You also state `…But he plainly also
meant races in the biological sense. He simply failed to distinguish
the two much of the time…'. I see what you are saying here,
and will take it up later. For now, I just want to run by you
an interpretation of the doctrine as it applies to now and the
future.
Steiner does state that `race' now and henceforth
does not play the part it formerly did in human `evolution'.
While he did not explicitly support the vocal critics you mentioned,
who in his time spoke against the conflation of race and culture,
does not this statement of his amount to intrinsic agreement?
In line with his statement, it is straightforward
to contend that, today and in the future, you are right, and
the doctrine does indeed mean culture and not race. For example,
in the 7th cultural epoch, the Americans are described as the
`seventh sub-race'. But by then their racial heritage will be
so mixed that the notion of race makes no sense.
To speak of the `American race', as someone
did here a few days ago, is then to confuse `race' and `culture'
– and perhaps `race' and `people'. You have already mentioned
this confusion. If it were instead held that the `seventh sub-race'
is more properly described as, say, the `seventh sub-culture'
or `seventh sub-people' – I doubt that many anthro's would
have a problem with this re-wording - would this amount to a
non-racist formulation of the doctrine?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:52 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Raymon, thanks for your posts. You wrote:
You state `…I already agree that Steiner
"meant" cultures when he talked about races…'.
And you state that insofar as this is the case, the doctrine
is not racist
It isn't necessarily racist, but it certainly can be, if these
cultures-cum-races are ranked in ascending and descending order
according to cosmic-spiritual-evolutionary criteria. That, of
course, is exactly what Steiner does.
For now, I just want to run by you an interpretation of the
doctrine as it applies to now and the future. Steiner does state
that `race' now and henceforth does not play the part it formerly
did in human `evolution'.
Steiner contradicted himself several times on that question.
He said that people in the future will be divided into a race
of good and a race of evil, for example, and he said that the
white race is the race of the future, and so forth.
While he did not explicitly support the vocal critics you
mentioned, who in his time spoke against the conflation of race
and culture, does not this statement of his amount to intrinsic
agreement?
No, of course not. Even if Steiner's statements on the racial
future were not self-contradictory, many of his statements on
the racial present and the racial past quite explicitly endorse
the conflation of race and culture.
But by then their racial heritage will be so mixed that the
notion of race makes no sense.
It doesn't even make sense today. So what? Racists aren't people
whose usage of racial terms makes sense, they're people whose
usage of racial terms is marked by ranking, hierarchy, explicit
inequality.
If it were instead held that the `seventh
sub-race' is more properly described as, say, the `seventh sub-culture'
or `seventh sub-people' – I doubt that many anthro's would
have a problem with this re-wording - would this amount to a
non-racist formulation of the doctrine?
Good question. I think that replacing Steiner's
race talk with straightforward claims about cultural trends (not
peoples), unconnected to any doctrine of progressive racial evolution,
would go a long way toward achieving a non-racist formulation
of anthroposophical doctrine.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 10:59 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
At 20:52 02.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
I think that replacing Steiner's race talk
with straightforward claims about cultural trends (not peoples),
unconnected to any doctrine of progressive racial evolution,
would go a long way toward achieving a non-racist formulation
of anthroposophical doctrine.
You're not even remotely qualified to suggest
reformulations or paraphrasing of anthroposophical literature,
but if you're so dedicated to your interest in Anthroposophy
that you wish to edit all of Steiner's works yourself, you can
try asking some anthroposophical publishers to find out if they're
interested.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 11:26 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
You're not even remotely qualified to suggest reformulations
or paraphrasing of anthroposophical literature, but if you're
so dedicated to your interest in Anthroposophy that you wish
to edit all of Steiner's works yourself, you can try asking some
anthroposophical publishers to find out if they're interested.
Editing isn't the issue. That would just mean sticking your heads
in the sand and pretending that Steiner's racial doctrines aren't
really there. What might make sense is a re-thinking and re-working
of the concepts at stake, so that anthroposophy can finally grow
past the less savory aspects of its origins. You are quite right
that I am unqualified for this endeavor, but you and and other
anthroposophists could be well qualified for it. I must admit
that I am skeptical that such a project would actually succeed,
but for what it's worth, I do think it's worth trying.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 12:03 pm
Subject: Peter S about HPB
At 21:26 02.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
Editing isn't the issue. That would just
mean sticking your heads in the sand and pretending that Steiner's
racial doctrines aren't really there. What might make sense is
a re-thinking and re-working of the concepts at stake, so that
anthroposophy can finally grow past the less savory aspects of
its origins.
OK, let's start with Detlef's question then:
Were the "yellow and red, brown and black"
races ever "main races" for Blavatsky?
As you probably remember, this question arose
out of the HPB quotations you
posted:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3374
Detlef
summed it up as follows and asked you a decisive question:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3400
We have seen that Blavatsky
writes of the "yellow and red, brown and black" races.
(An aside: does anyone know why she puts these in quotation marks?)
We have also seen that she speaks of root races. She speaks of
the latter as "remnants of the Atlanteans", which is
the fourth root race according to Blavatsky. We seem to all agree
that, for Blavatsky, "main race" and "root race"
mean the same. The question remaining is: were the "yellow
and red, brown and black" races ever "main races"
for Blavatsky?
I will proceed with my train of thought when this question is
answered.
Best regards, Detlef Hardorp
We're all waiting, Peter.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:48 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Gidday Peter,
You say
It isn't necessarily racist, but it certainly
can be, if these cultures-cum-races are ranked in ascending and
descending order according to cosmic-spiritual-evolutionary criteria.
R:
Yes. So, if he meant `culture' and not `race'
then the question becomes one not of racism but of whether and
how a given culture can be considered superior or inferior to
another. And it is this that we can address. (I am still talking
of today and the future – the doctrine regarding the past
is certainly on the face of it racist, albeit by definition,
but that's a separate discussion we can take up elsewhere.)
P:
He said that people in the future will
be divided into a race of good and a race of evil, for example,
and he said that the white race is the race of the future, and
so forth.
R:
Well we can dispense of the latter –
if someone here believes that then let them speak out. Andrea
has pointed out that the 6th sub-race `mission' could potentially
fall to the Brazilians, who like the 7th `American' sub-race
will have a substantially mixed racial heritage – clearly
neither can be described as a `white race'. As to the first point,
that of good and evil `races' - race here is a poor choice of
wording; I interpret Steiner not to mean `race' in the classic
sense, but to mean a categorizing of humanity into `good' and
`evil' groups. Can you allow this? The issue then devolves back
to the same one mentioned above – whether and how a particular
group can be considered superior or inferior to another, and
on what grounds, etc. Given that, would you agree this particular
aspect can be formulated such that it is not a question of racism?
P:
Even if Steiner's statements on the racial
future were not self-contradictory, many of his statements on
the racial present and the racial past quite explicitly endorse
the conflation of race and culture.
R:
The past, going by some of his statements,
yes – but I am confining my current argument to those parts
of the doctrine that relate to the present and future. Given
that you are prepared to believe that he meant `culture' and
not `race', and that if we re-express the doctrine in such (and
so less-dangerous) terms as regards now and the future - would
not your concerns lie not with racism per se, but with the issue
of ranking the various groups as to whether they are `advanced'
or `retarded' and so on?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 6:56 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Gidday Peter,
You said
I think that replacing Steiner's race talk
with straightforward claims about cultural trends (not peoples),
unconnected to any doctrine of progressive racial evolution,
would go a long way toward achieving a non-racist formulation
of anthroposophical doctrine.
R:
Yes; your suggestion is for the doctrine to
assume a different form in some respects. While I would normally
cringe somewhat at rolling out a `Steiner Says' quote to bolster
my own arguments, the following statement actually supports your
call in that it does allow for doctrinal change. Evidently, by
his reckoning, the current model should differ from that of a
century ago:
`The Dawn of Occultism in the Modern Age',
Cassel, 27 Jan 1912:
`…We can only understand
the work of rosicrucianism as it is today when we realize that
it was never a model laid down once and for all but assumes a
different form in every century. This is because rosicrucianism
must always adapt itself to the conditions of the times...'
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Raymon, you wrote:
So, if he meant `culture' and not `race' then the question
becomes one not of racism but of whether and how a given culture
can be considered superior or inferior to another.
That doesn't completely make sense to me. If he said "race"
then he couldn't have meant culture and not race; he must have
meant both culture and race, in your interpretation. He quite
explicitly says that some races are higher than others.
race here is a poor choice of wording;
I interpret Steiner not to mean `race' in the classic sense,
but to mean a categorizing of humanity into `good' and `evil'
groups. Can you allow this?
I not only allow this, it is a crucial aspect of my argument.
Steiner did indeed use racial terminology to categorize humanity
into good and evil groups. Such usage is racist. Not immoral,
not pathological, not politically incorrect, just racist.
The issue then devolves back to the same
one mentioned above – whether and how a particular group
can be considered superior or inferior to another, and on what
grounds, etc. Given that, would you agree this particular aspect
can be formulated such that it is not a question of racism?
Yes, it absolutely can be; you might say that good and evil are
delineated along gender lines, for examples, and that wouldn't
be racist. But Steiner chose race as his marker, over
and over again.
Given that you are prepared to believe
that he meant `culture' and not `race',
I'm not sure what you mean here. I am not prepared to believe
that Steiner meant just culture when he said and wrote "race";
that would be a clear misreading, in my view.
and that if we re-express the doctrine
in such (and so less-dangerous) terms as regards now and the
future - would not your concerns lie not with racism per se,
but with the issue of ranking the various groups as to whether
they are `advanced' or `retarded' and so on?
Yes, but I don't see what it has to do with the matter at hand.
Perhaps we are talking past one another. The extensive passages
from Steiner about racial evolution that sparked this thread
all very explicitly concern race. They do not simply discuss
culture. If anthroposophists want to re-work these doctrines
to render them non-racist, I think they'll have to confront the
race stuff directly.
Thanks for a very interesting ongoing discussion,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:30 am
Subject: Question about races (was: Re: Steiner on racial evolution)
At 19:20 03.04.2004, Peter S wrote:
Steiner did indeed use racial terminology
to categorize humanity into good and evil groups. Such usage
is racist. Not immoral, not pathological, not politically incorrect,
just racist.
If I have understood you correctly, usage
of the word "race" by RS and HPB is always racist without
exception, whether one is talking about a distant future good
or evil "race" where heredity no longer comes into
question, or about the Root Races of the distant past. Which
brings us right back to the question Detlef was asking: Were
the yellow, red, brown and black races "root races"
according to HPB?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 9:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Question about races (was:
Re: Steiner on racial evolution)
Hi Tarjei, you wrote:
If I have understood you correctly, usage of the word "race"
by RS and HPB is always racist without exception
No, you definitely have not understood me correctly. Steiner's
discussions of race are not always racist without exception.
His doctrines include several non-racist strands. Only some of
his racial teachings are racist, in my view. I've said this many
times over, for what it's worth.
Which brings us right back to the question
Detlef was asking: Were the yellow, red, brown and black races
"root races" according to HPB?
I answered that question last month, I answered it yesterday,
and I answered it again today. Do you just not like my answer?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Mike:
Some of us like to broaden our perspective
and think in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. That
consciousness has evolved through different cultures and peoples
and the terms "higher and lower" are words used to
describe the progress, or digression. Maybe they are not the
best "words" that could be used to describe the process.
But some of us aren't just looking for "words" to help
us "recognize the basic features racist thought."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, I can see that. This probably explains
why you get irritated when other people, who do pay attention
to Steiner's words, point out that some of his teachings are
racist. It might also explain why you get irritated when other
people, who do recognize the basic features of racist thought,
try to describe some of those features for you. You frequently
get "peoples" and "cultures" mixed up, and
you appear to think that both are essentially synonyms for "race".
The belief that some races are higher while others are lower,
that some races are progressing while others are regressing,
is racist. It remains racist no matter what one thinks about
political correctness, morality, or the evolution of consciousness.
If you think this belief is not racist, you just need to explain
why.
Daniel:
Peter, I can hardly believe that you write
this to Mike! You are accusing him of exactly the errors you
continually make, namely interchanging the concepts of people,
culture and race in Steiner's writing. When Steiner writes of
culture, you claim it is race he is referring to and that that
makes him a racist. I find it ironic that you then turn and accuse
Mike of the same thing.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 9:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think that's what we should be
doing anyway. Since Steiner isn't around anymore, we can't ask
him what his actual intent was. What we can do is read what he
wrote and said and try to make sense of it.
Daniel:
Peter, I take it that you limit yourself to
trying to make sense of it, rather than, say, to try to figure
out what Steiner meant, because you find such "objectivity"
to be unattainable in theory. Is that correct?
Harvey:
It would be valuable and refreshing if
one were to look upon the influence Steiner has sired in his
teaching and which resides in his infrastructures such as Waldorf,
Biodynamic, Christian Community, Banking initiatives, etc, with
a view to analyzing and probing the underlying moral intent carried
forward into human history by those who employ his ideas and
work within his infrastructures.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That's a fine idea. When we look at what
some prominent representatives of Waldorf, biodynamics, and the
Christian Community said and did before and during the Nazi era,
we find a lot of examples of racism, nationalism, and antisemitism.
These people thought that they were employing Steiner's ideas.
Daniel:
I would be curious to hear about the racist
representatives of the Christian Community during the Nazi era.
Or their pro-Nazi activities. Or their nationalism during this
time period. Examples please.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think that conflates several distinct
steps. Whether you think that specific statements about race
can be considered racist is one thing; whether you think such
statements constitute moral wrong-doing is another. Mixing the
two up won't help us make sense of the matter.
Daniel:
Interesting. I find it odd that you are attempting
to judge a text without judging it. Perhaps that is why you have
such difficulty with judgement.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:49 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Peter, I take it that you limit yourself to trying to make
sense of it, rather than, say, to try to figure out what Steiner
meant, because you find such "objectivity" to be unattainable
in theory. Is that correct?
No. I focus on making sense of it, instead of speculating about
intentions, because intention and ideology are different things.
Examples please.
Rittelmeyer, for starters. Or maybe you don't think he was a
nationalist? And perhaps you find his writings on Jews commendable?
Peter:
I don't think that's what we should be
doing anyway. Since Steiner isn't around anymore, we can't ask
him what his actual intent was. What we can do is read what he
wrote and said and try to make sense of it.
Daniel:
Peter, I take it that you limit yourself
to trying to make sense of it, rather than, say, to try to figure
out what Steiner meant, because you find such "objectivity"
to be unattainable in theory. Is that correct?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 10:11 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
Peter, I can hardly believe that you write this to Mike! You
are accusing him of exactly the errors you continually make,
namely interchanging the concepts of people, culture and race
in Steiner's writing. When Steiner writes of culture, you claim
it is race he is referring to and that that makes him a racist.
I take it you have already forgotten the Steiner passages that
began this thread. In every single one of them Steiner writes
of race, without exception. May I suggest that you try re-reading
those passages? You'll find them here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/3469
Thanks,
Peter
Mike:
Some of us like to broaden our perspective
and think in terms of the evolution of human consciousness. That
consciousness has evolved through different cultures and peoples
and the terms "higher and lower" are words used to
describe the progress, or digression. Maybe they are not the
best "words" that could be used to describe the process.
But some of us aren't just looking for "words" to help
us "recognize the basic features racist thought."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, I can see that. This probably explains
why you get irritated when other people, who do pay attention
to Steiner's words, point out that some of his teachings are
racist. It might also explain why you get irritated when other
people, who do recognize the basic features of racist thought,
try to describe some of those features for you. You frequently
get "peoples" and "cultures" mixed up, and
you appear to think that both are essentially synonyms for "race".
The belief that some races are higher while others are lower,
that some races are progressing while others are regressing,
is racist. It remains racist no matter what one thinks about
political correctness, morality, or the evolution of consciousness.
If you think this belief is not racist, you just need to explain
why.
Daniel:
Peter, I can hardly believe that you write
this to Mike! You are accusing him of exactly the errors you
continually make, namely interchanging the concepts of people,
culture and race in Steiner's writing. When Steiner writes of
culture, you claim it is race he is referring to and that that
makes him a racist. I find it ironic that you then turn and accuse
Mike of the same thing.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 4:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Peter Staudenmaier:
Editing isn't the issue. That would just
mean sticking your heads in the sand and pretending that Steiner's
racial doctrines aren't really there. What might make sense is
a re-thinking and re-working of the concepts at stake, so that
anthroposophy can finally grow past the less savory aspects of
its origins. You are quite right that I am unqualified for this
endeavor, but you and and other anthroposophists could be well
qualified for it. I must admit that I am skeptical that such
a project would actually succeed, but for what it's worth, I
do think it's worth trying.
Daniel:
I've noticed that in this type of post, the
existence of Steiner's "Racial doctrines" are taken
as a given, and "kindly" advice is given as to what
to do with them. I suggest that a proper understanding of the
concepts demonstrates that they a long ways indeed from racism,
and do not require reworking to avoid Peter Staudenmaier's label.
Peter Staudenmaier might consider sitting down with some basic
Steiner books and attempting to actually understand an author
that he has spent years trying to redefine from a staunch individualist
and anti-racist to a hatemongering modernist racist. Try it,
Peter. You might even learn something!
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: walkinsnotwelcome
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 7:27 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
walkinsnotwelcome wrote:
(1) I was being ambivalent today about
buying a magazine called Anarchy, then saw your name in there
and knew just what to do. Then it seemed the people in there
hated your mode of criticism/analysis/discussion, threw many
bad words at it, but your style seemed very straightforward to
me, I don't know what to think, I will probably make some effort
at resolving this.
Hi, Peter - It's resolved, as far as I'm concerned.
It was suspicious to me how the arguments you got involved in
became highly convoluted and twisted and difficult to follow,
like some obscurantism was going on, in both the anarchist magazine
and this list. But it's clear that your opponents here are creating
the confusion themselves and then blaming you for it. I would
have thought it so unlikely for that to be the explanation, it's
an amazing thing to have witnessed. By the way, how you write
reminds me some of Robert Christgau, he writes about music for
the Village Voice.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Apr 6, 2004 5:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Raymon:
So, if he meant `culture' and not `race'
then the question becomes one not of racism but of whether and
how a given culture can be considered superior or inferior to
another.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That doesn't completely make sense to me.
If he said "race" then he couldn't have meant culture
and not race; he must have meant both culture and race, in your
interpretation. He quite explicitly says that some races are
higher than others.
Daniel:
This statement is horribly general. First,
it would be helpful to have a quote for reference. In which statment
could Steiner not possibly have meant culture when he says race?
Further, such a statement seems to assume that words never change
meaning over time - a horribly naive position for a historian
(though perhaps useful for a polemicist).
Raymond:
race here is a poor choice of wording;
I interpret Steiner not to mean `race' in the classic sense,
but to mean a categorizing of humanity into `good' and `evil'
groups. Can you allow this?
Peter Staudenmaier:
I not only allow this, it is a crucial
aspect of my argument. Steiner did indeed use racial terminology
to categorize humanity into good and evil groups. Such usage
is racist. Not immoral, not pathological, not politically incorrect,
just racist.
Daniel:
Interesting. So Steiner's use of the word
"race" in a general sense to denote a group of people
- as was quite common at the time - is racist! Even if the groups
have nothing to do with skin color - as long as it is two groups
of people, one "good" and one "bad" then
it is racist. Anything to get Steiner to fit the label, I suppose.
Raymond:
The issue then devolves back to the same
one mentioned above – whether and how a particular group
can be considered superior or inferior to another, and on what
grounds, etc. Given that, would you agree this particular aspect
can be formulated such that it is not a question of racism?
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, it absolutely can be; you might say
that good and evil are delineated along gender lines, for examples,
and that wouldn't be racist. But Steiner chose race as
his marker, over and over again.
Daniel:
If you actually read the entire lecture where
this idea is presented, you might notice that the defining characteristic
- the identifier - that places individuals into one race or the
other is their behavior! Those who DO good, become good. Those
who DO evil, become evil. In Steiner's view, at this future point
many thousands of years in the future, behavior will actually
determine racial affiliation. Race is not the marker, behavior
is. Peter, you are utterly incapable of presenting Steiner's
ideas properly, and this is yet another perfect example. You
have presented Steiner's position to the opposite of his actual
stance. This is truly pathetic. Do you actually read the chapter
you take your quotes from?
Daniel Hindes
[Continued in the thread NYTimes.com Article: The
Public Editor: The Privileges of Opinion, the Obligations of
Fact]
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Apr 7, 2004 9:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
In which statment could Steiner not possibly have meant culture
when he says race?
But I already agree that Steiner did mean culture when
he said race. He also meant race, of course.
So Steiner's use of the word "race" in a general
sense to denote a group of people - as was quite common at the
time - is racist!
Anybody who says that some races are higher and others are lower,
that some races are good and others are evil, is using the word
race in a racist fashion. If you genuinely dispute this, could
you explain why?
If you actually read the entire lecture where this idea is
presented, you might notice that the defining characteristic
- the identifier - that places individuals into one race or the
other is their behavior!
Yes, of course. That's a central part of Steiner's racial theory.
In reality, people's behavior does not place them in one race
or another.
Those who DO good, become good. Those who DO evil, become
evil